Allowed

Tahir Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023CRLA/6928/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail appeal under the SC/ST Act filed by a person charged with cheating, the High Court, though not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case or the likelihood of conviction, held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for bail and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail after furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Tahir Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6928 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Tahir Singh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam,Ashutosh,Jyoti Kumar Singh,Rupendra Kumar Mishra,Syed Irfan Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST) Act, Rampur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellant's Bail Application No. 102 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur.

¶7

According to the prosecution case on 26.10.2017, the appellant, on the assurance of getting the informant, Virendra Kumar admitted in a Medical College at Bellur Chennai, Tamilnadu, on the seat reserved for scheduled caste, has taken Rs. 9,70,000/- from him . The appellant has given the informant a fee slip of the college and assured him that now his admission will be done in Medical College Bellur, Chennai, Tamilnadu. When the informant went to the aforesaid medical college and inquired about his admission from the Principal, showing the fee slip and other related papers, he was told that the receipt was not issued by the Medical College.

¶8

The informant told the appellant that his admission was not done in the college. He asked the appellant to return the said money of Rs. 9,70,000/-. On 26th September, 2020, the appellant gave a written assurance on Rs. 100/- stamp paper to the informant that his money will be refunded in his Bank Account by the aforesaid medical college. But the money was not returned. On several occasions, the informant asked the appellant to return the money but he did not return, in stead, he along with his companions hurled derogatory castiest abuses to the informant and threatened him to dire consequences.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that the appellant is a Physiotherapist and the informant worked under his employment. It is submitted that the informant has taken Rs. 5,900/- from the appellant, which was transferred in his sister-in-law's (Bhabhi) bank account, and when the appellant asked the informant to return the said money, the informant refused to return and lodged a false FIR. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged with delay of more than four years. It is submitted that there is no documentary evidence about the alleged payment of money by informant to the accused. According to the prosecution, the informant arranged the money for payment to the appellant by selling three Bigha agricultural land to one Brijesh Sharma on 12.12.2017. It is submitted that the land was sold on 12.12.2017, however, the money was allegedly given to the accused appellant on 26.10.2017. Hence, the money could not have been procured by the sale of the land. It is fairly submitted that the appellant is a respectable citizen and has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 02.08.2022

¶10

and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant stating that the appellant-accused has cheated the informant by taking Rs. 9,70,000/- on the assurance to secure his admission in the aforesaid college. But the appellant could not secure admission for the informant nor he returned the informant's money. However, he could dispute the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents attached to the case diary, the fact that the appellant is in jail since 02.08.2022, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed . The impugned order dated 29.08.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant Tahir Singh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶16

(ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any

¶18

criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶20

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶21

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶22

It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.2.2023

¶24

Brijesh Maurya

¶25

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tahir Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahir Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakti Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Alias Pintu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avaneesh Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Uttam Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atal Joshi Alias Awadh Bihari Vs State of U.P. and Another